Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SEP 3 2003
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 03-6064
(D.C. No. 01-CV-1723-T)
(W.D. Okla.)
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff-Appellant Cecil J. Taggart, Jr., a former state inmate appearing
pro se, appeals from the district courts dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action
filed against the State of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
(DOC), and DOC Medical Services. The district court construed the complaint
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge
panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
**
review, Higganbotham v. Okla., 328 F.3d 638, 644 (10th Cir. 2003), we also
agree that the Eleventh Amendment bars Mr. Taggarts claims against the State of
Oklahoma, the DOC, DOC Medical Services, and Warden Hines (acting in his
official capacity). See Eastwood v. Dept. of Corrs., 846 F.2d 627, 632 (10th Cir.
1988). Even if any of Mr. Taggarts claims were read to be asserted against
individuals acting in their individual capacities, we agree with the magistrate
judge that Mr. Taggart would not have properly exhausted those claims as
required by 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). Given this combination of problems with each
of his claims, we conclude that the district courts resolution was correct. Finally,
because the district court correctly dismissed Mr. Taggarts federal law claims,
we perceive no abuse of discretion in its decision to refuse to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3);
Gold v. Local 7 United Food & Commer. Workers Union, 159 F.3d 1307, 1310
(10th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district courts dismissal of Mr. Taggarts
complaint. Furthermore, we GRANT Mr. Taggarts motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and remind him that he is obligated to make partial payments of the
filing fee until the entire fee has been paid. We DENY his request for
appointment of counsel and GRANT his request to have his supplemental
authority considered (it does not change the outcome). Finally, counsel for
-4-
Defendants is directed to observe the requirements of 10th Cir. R. 28.2 for future
filings.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-5-